Clinton's Jail

.

Following up on this:


Bill Clinton excerpt:

"I said, ‘Natan, what is the deal [about not supporting the peace deal],'" Clinton recalled. "He said, ‘I can't vote for this, I'm Russian...I come from one of the biggest countries in the world to one of the smallest. You want me to cut it in half. No, thank you.'"

Clinton responded, "Don't give me this, you came here from a jail cell. It's a lot bigger than your jail cell."

And here's EG's comment:

As we know, the Gaza Strip too is bigger than a jail cell, although many enemies of Israel call it an open air jail. Can we ask Bill C to adjudicate this matter??

And J responded:

Unbelievable. I assume Jews should be happy they are no longer being put in ovens.

BTW, OG has pointed out:

Starting on page 187 of "The Case for Democracy", the story is that Sharansky resigned on the eve of Barak’s visit to Camp David...Half of the book is about why Sharansky was opposed to the assumptions of the entire Oslo process. He said “I refuse to ignore the Palestinian Authority’s violations of human rights because I remain convinced that a neighbor who tramples on the rights of its own people will eventually threaten the security of my people.”

And this:

Sharansky says that the rejection of the Oslo process that required the United States and Israel to prop up dictators is dead and should be replaced by a bottom approach to peace:

"I have always believed that the only reliable path to peace begins with a bottom-up approach in rebuilding Palestinian civil society, in which Palestinians rebuild their educational system to teach their students to be good citizens rather than suicide bombers; in which Palestinians rebuild their economy through a commitment to initiative and personal freedom; rebuild their security apparatus to secure peace rather than preparing for war; and build proper and healthy civic institutions."

And this:

When Sharansky led his Yisrael B’Aliya faction out of the government prior to Camp David, the New York Times, the chief cheerleader for the Oslo process, was furious. Deborah Sontag devoted an entire article to exploring the paradox of the former human rights activist turned hardline nationalist. She found many eager to comment negatively on Sharansky as a pandering politician, but in all of Israel there was only one obscure chareidi columnist for the Jerusalem Post with a good word to say for him.

In fact, the alleged paradox did not exist. Sharansky continued to be guided by the insight of the moral mentor of the Soviet dissident movement, nuclear physicist Andre Sakharov: a country that does not respect the rights of its citizens will not respect the rights of others.

From the beginning, Sharansky was a critic of the Oslo process. Shimon Peres openly declared that Oslo was based on a ``leap of faith" that the inventor of modern terrorism would become a partner for peace – a messianic delusion that Peres is unable to shake until this very day. From that original leap of faith followed the second great failing of Oslo: the insistent refusal to focus on Palestinian compliance. The messianic belief in the peace process precluded attention to any unpleasant facts that would have revealed how ill-founded was the Oslo faith.

Thirdly, Sharansky bemoaned the lack of national consensus on the Israeli side. Oslo’s proponents were content to push through the most dramatic agreements in Israel’s history with a narrow one-vote advantage in the Knesset, even if that one vote had to be purchased with the promises of a Mitsubishi to obscure MKs on the other side of the aisle.

Sharansky’s most trenchant criticism of Oslo was a direct outgrowth of his experiences as a Soviet dissident. He understood, as no one else did at the time, the direct connection between Palestinian democracy and any hope of peace. The Oslo architects believed that Arafat would become their deputy to stop Palestinian terrorism. From their point of view, then, the stronger Arafat became the better. Yitzchak Rabin savored the idea of Arafat dealing with terrorists unconstrained by ``a Supreme Court, Betselem, and all kinds of bleeding heart liberals."

In article after article over nearly a decade, Sharansky argued that this approach would not, could not, work. Peace would never be achieved with a totalitarian Palestinian regime. Only a Palestinian democracy could make an enduring peace.

- - -